Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to make her aware she would have to pay a fee for a kerbset memorial. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Council has made some improvements to the information it now supplies. There is not enough injustice to Miss X from any original ambiguity in its information to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X applied for a grant of exclusive right of burial in 2016. When she commissioned a kerbset memorial several years later, the Council charged her a £338 fee. Miss X was unhappy with this, as she believed the costs of this memorial were already included in the fee she paid to obtain the grant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the Council’s final complaint response, the grant of exclusive right of burial document and complaint details supplied by Miss X.
4. Miss X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. A “grant of burial” is permission given by the Council to allow burial in a particular plot marked by a memorial.
6. A “kerbset” memorial is one which has a stone surround delineating the edge of the grave.
7. A “headstone” memorial is a traditional gravestone.

Miss X’s complaint

8. Miss X successfully applied for an exclusive grant of burial in 2016, which cost her £2625. The grant gave Miss X the right to place a memorial on the grave for her late brother.
9. Miss X consulted a stonemason to arrange for a kerbset memorial to be placed on the grave. The stonemason explained this type of memorial would entail an additional £334 charge.
10. Miss X was not happy with this and believed the stone mason had charged her incorrectly. She opted to pay the charge because she did not want to delay erection of the memorial and believed she could take the matter up with the Council later.
11. Miss X complained to the Council saying that she felt she had been overcharged for erecting a kerbset memorial, as the grant does not stipulate which kind of memorial is covered by the grant.
12. The Council advised that the terms of the grant meant Miss X had only been entitled to install a headstone memorial at the site without incurring additional costs.
13. The Council did agree that the wording of the grant did not make this as clear as it could have done and advised it would address this in future.
14. Miss X was not happy with the Council’s explanation and remained of the opinion that the Council had overcharged her. She opted to refer the complaint to us when she was unable to resolve the matter with the Council.

Back to top

Analysis

15. I have reviewed the terms of the grant Miss X applied for and I agree it is unclear that “memorial” solely refers to headstone memorials. The Council has acknowledged the wording of the grant is not clear on this point. I am therefore satisfied the Council could have been more specific when detailing Miss X’s entitlement to erect a memorial in the grant.
16. It is possible the Council’s failure to clarify this may be fault. However, I have reviewed the Council’s Cemeteries and Crematoria fees and charges and I see it has updated this document as of April 2019 to show there is an additional charge for choosing a kerbset memorial.
17. Therefore, the Council has effectively addressed this part of the complaint. An investigation could not add anything to this.
18. Miss X says the Council did not give her a choice to pay a fee for the kerbset memorial. However, the stonemason told Miss X about the charge before they made the memorial. Therefore, Miss X could have queried the fee with the Council prior to paying it. I appreciate Miss X’s reasons for paying the fee but she did have a choice about whether to proceed when she discovered the charge was higher than she had anticipated.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has already addressed the substantive issues raised and Miss X’s personal injustice is not enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman